Motivation: Very good reviewers, speedy process, excellent handling. Reviewers comments really helped turning a manuscript with great potential but not sufficiently developed argument into one with coherent and clear message. Editor's work facilitated this.

Motivation: Overall good quality of reviews. Reasonable and correct criticism and some positive remarks as well, so quite balanced. No major changes were required content wise.

Only the editing system was a bit of a mess. It did not accept my pdfs, I had to convert them to an older PDF version (v1.5) Submitting files was not so easy, because the system is locked when it thinks it has successfully received your files, even if that is not the case. As a result I had to sent a lot of emails with files to an assistant editor. Communication was good though, prompt and kind replies to my emails.

Motivation: The review process and the editor's comments were helpful. Because the journal is UK based and my articles is very US government based, some things I took for granted needed further clarification. The editor (Monica Blake) responded to e-mails in a timely way and was very helpful.

Motivation: There was one review very poorly written and most comments could not be understood. It seems like a review written by a postdoc instead of a principal investigator who should be (or was) asked to do perform review. Senior Editor showed no interest for scientific discussion.

Motivation: Although the paper I submitted was actually a direct response to a polemic attacking our own work quite personally, and published in the same journal, the response read "...your submission would be better suited for a more specialized journal". In other words they sought to block our side of the debate. After I appealed and pointed out that one could not BE more specialised than the journal that had published the original paper, I got "your paper in it's (sic) present form is a review of a review and is not acceptable as a scholarly review or perspective". In other words they do not want to hear criticisms of papers they have published if it does not suit their own views. I am utterly disgusted by them, and I would advise anyone to avoid submitting anything serious there. Ever.

Motivation: There were two reviewers with contradictory recommendations and different quality of comments. The weaker reviewer recommended rejection and the editor rejected the manuscript based on rather poor arguments. The stronger reviewer recommended revise and resubmit and all the points could have been addressed without problems.

Motivation: After revising and resubmitting the manuscript it took the editors half a year to get back to me with a decision. Apart from that, the quality of reviews was high and the overall process was good.

Motivation: I was happy with the editorial process, but the comments I received from the reviewer were unfortunately not useful. The criticism stayed at a general level and included very little constructive feedback. For example, the reviewer indicated that there were too few references, "not all reviews on the subject are referred to", but gave no specific information on these missing pieces.

Motivation: We were very happy that the editor informed us very quickly (the same day!) that our contribution was not fit for the journal. We also liked the argumentation of the quick reply, namely that we could submit it elsewhere without delay.

Motivation: We are very satisfied about the contact with the editorial office, as well as with the speed of the process. The reviewer reports, however, were less informative, as the comments suggested that they did not read the paper in detail.

Motivation: Six months after submission, I emailed the editorial office to enquire about the status of my paper. The contact person claimed she emailed a reviewer and never heard from them. I wanted to withdraw my paper. But she encouraged me to wait because she assigned a new reviewer. After almost 2 months, I get an email saying "Further to a discussion with the editors your article has been declined for publication." No reviewer reports whatsover. So I have no idea how many reviewers reviewed the paper. I have no idea what their comments were. Absolutely horrible experience. I will never encourage anyone to submit their paper to this journal.

Motivation: The review process was smooth and relatively quick. My only frustration was that the editor made a lot of unnecessary minor edits after acceptance. Some of these altered the meaning of sentences and resulted in inaccuracies that I had to address.

Motivation: In the first round the editor(s) failed to send me the full text of one of the reviewers' reports. It took a number of months before the editorial team realised this, which delayed the process substantially. The time from acceptance to publication was 8 months.

Motivation: The turnaround time was relatively short and as "advertized". The reviews were polite and constructive in tone, and focused primarily on shortcomings. While the reviewers had a few suggestions for improvement, they could have been more developmental. Some of the criticisms appeared too demanding to me.